Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 11 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why EVFs will replace reflex systems
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 3 2009 11:36 pm
From: "David J Taylor"

John Turco wrote:
[]
> Hello, David:
>
> Oh, well...I'm merely glad that my K100D uses four AA cells. :-P
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

Just as I am delighted to be rid of multiple cylindrical cells!

Cheers,
David

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 11:48 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <7hfVl.313491$4m1.143929@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Andrew Koenig says...

> And let us not forget the time lag inherent in every EVF, especially in low
> light.

That is not a time lag, but a feature (camera simulating motion blur, to
deliver a preview of what you get).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Use your build-in flash better!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e73c75a13086e0a0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 12:16 am
From: "Ron Wood"

"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:nehe25lp1k2fvfrlkklsi7nviorcdhadr4@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 00:12:11 +0100, "Bertram Paul" <dont@mail.me>
> wrote:
>
>>If you want better pictures with your internal flash (and external), this
>>is
>>a good place to look:
>>http://bertram-paul.blogspot.com/
>>
>>Just leave a comment if your interested.

Yus pleeze.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: D Mac
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/66261650d6c0f85e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 12:36 am
From: DMac

Annika1980 wrote:
> On Jun 4, 12:30 am, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete> wrote:
>
>> Report made.
>
> The report I read said you're a wanker.
>

Needing glasses already?
It said I was a *Banker*

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 1:50 am
From: Neil Ellwood

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:36:34 +1000, DMac wrote:

> Annika1980 wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 12:30 am, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete> wrote:
>>
>>> Report made.
>>
>> The report I read said you're a wanker.
>>
>>
> Needing glasses already?
> It said I was a *Banker*

It must be you that needs glasses - the copy that arrived here definitely
started with a 'B'.

Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 8:52 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Anonymous <nobody@nymu.eu> wrote:
>is a wanker

Oooo! The whining of an anonymous coward!

Not impressed.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Will there be a digital TLR camera?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a866e4902f6051ad?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 1:54 am
From: Neil Ellwood

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:09:35 -0700, rkmr15203 wrote:

> On Jun 2, 10:23 pm, anira...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Try a digital TLR....
>
> http://www.minox.com/index.php?id=1996&L=1

A 3 megapixel camera for 249 euros = no thanks.

Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 2:05 am
From: bugbear

Allen wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
>> George Kerby wrote:
>>> My C330 had a little red bar that would appear and move downward in the
>>> viewing lens as the focal plane moved closer to the camera.
>>
>> Yes - it was a splendid attempt to overcome the normal
>> limitations of a TLR by brute force :-)
>>
>> I mean, a TLR with interchangeable lenses? That is *not*
>> natural!
>>
>> BugBear (with Yashica Automat that sees little use)
> Framing isn't the only problem associated with parallax.

Care to expand? Since I only used the TLR for
landscape work, it seemed to work rather
well in practice.

TLRs were a common press camara in the 50s and 60s (check out
any footage of the Beatles arriving at an airport),
and a standard wedding camera long after that, so I guess
the problems were survivable.

BugBear

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 7:09 am
From: Don Stauffer

aniramca@gmail.com wrote:
> The twin-lens Reflex camera utilized a 120 film. Some of the old
> models included the famous Rolleiflex, as well as Mamiya C series and
> Yashica MAT124. I am not a 100% sure why this type of camera had a
> niche in the past few decades. Perhaps when you take a long exposure
> photos, the screen will not go blank.
> My question is whether there will be a digital TLR camera made
> sometime in the future. I knew that there are plastic toy camera using
> the TLR concept (Holga), and the most recent one from Japan -
> Blackbird http://www.superheadz.com/bbf/
> The blackbird has a nice concept and artistic, but very limited specs
> and using a 35mm film. I even wonder why they did not go to digital.
> Perhaps the sensor cost will be too expensive to make it a "toy" or
> "artistic" camera.
> Is there a future of a digital TLR? or is it not practical/economical
> with twin lens, and a large size sensor. Just curious!

Unlikely. Mfgs have learned how to make moving mirrors quite reliable
in the decades since the TLR was popular. It was a pain in some ways.
To replace lens took twice the time, 'cause you had to replace both
lenses.

The TLR was popular in days when prime lens was relatively simple
compared to today's lenses, so cost of a second lens wasn't that bad. I
don't remember a TLR with a zoom lens. What a mechanical nightmare to
get not only the focusing mechanism, but the zooming mechanism to track.

BTW, there was nothing that REQUIRED TLR to have 2-1/4 format, so one
could make a TLR with any format size.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 7:19 am
From: George Kerby

On 6/4/09 9:09 AM, in article 4a27d5b7$0$89396$815e3792@news.qwest.net, "Don
Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:

> aniramca@gmail.com wrote:
>> The twin-lens Reflex camera utilized a 120 film. Some of the old
>> models included the famous Rolleiflex, as well as Mamiya C series and
>> Yashica MAT124. I am not a 100% sure why this type of camera had a
>> niche in the past few decades. Perhaps when you take a long exposure
>> photos, the screen will not go blank.
>> My question is whether there will be a digital TLR camera made
>> sometime in the future. I knew that there are plastic toy camera using
>> the TLR concept (Holga), and the most recent one from Japan -
>> Blackbird http://www.superheadz.com/bbf/
>> The blackbird has a nice concept and artistic, but very limited specs
>> and using a 35mm film. I even wonder why they did not go to digital.
>> Perhaps the sensor cost will be too expensive to make it a "toy" or
>> "artistic" camera.
>> Is there a future of a digital TLR? or is it not practical/economical
>> with twin lens, and a large size sensor. Just curious!
>
> Unlikely. Mfgs have learned how to make moving mirrors quite reliable
> in the decades since the TLR was popular. It was a pain in some ways.
> To replace lens took twice the time, 'cause you had to replace both
> lenses.
>
> The TLR was popular in days when prime lens was relatively simple
> compared to today's lenses, so cost of a second lens wasn't that bad. I
> don't remember a TLR with a zoom lens. What a mechanical nightmare to
> get not only the focusing mechanism, but the zooming mechanism to track.
>
I don't know about what TLR you had, Don. Every one that I saw, the lens had
*nothing* to do with focusing the subject. The only controls on the *lens*
was shutter speed and aperture, along with the lens cock/release and flash
sync. The body itself did the focusing.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/555753247e2a15f7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 2:27 am
From: "Jim...(8-| "

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:04:57 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 May 2009 07:09:22 GMT, "David J Taylor"
><david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
><CSLTl.35259$OO7.9581@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>>> Actually excels at most trades, and
>>> more than good enough for almost all purposes.
>>
>>P&S doesn't excel at most of the things I want to do, particularly with
>>operating speed,
>
>Operating speed of the FZ28 is quite fast, and not an issue for me.
>
>>lens quality,
>
>Lens quality of the FZ28 is superb.
Rather extraordinary.
>
>>small depth-of-field
>
>Depth of field of the FZ28 is sufficient for my needs.
>
>>and low-light
>>performance.
>
>Presuming you actually mean high ISO performance, I'll give you that,
>but for me it's much less important than the advantages of the FZ28.
>
>>One example - zooming is /much/ quicker twisting a
>>mechanical ring on the lens rather than pressing zoom-in and zoom-out
>>buttons, and this makes a real difference in action shooting (children,
>>airshows etc.).
>
>For you, but not for me.
As a very happy FZ28 owner I have to say that I'd be much happier if
it had a mechanical zoom but my use of the fiddly switch may improve
with practice.
>
>>But, as you know, I do also take a Panasonic TZ3 for the
>>times when its compact size or movie capability are required.
>
>Nice camera, but much less capable than the FZ28.

Now may be a good time to bring up the subject of battery life again
and the tiny little thing in the FZ28 seems to last forever. The
makers must have worked wonders with consumption recently. I had a
Polaroid compact years ago that would have been lucky to get a dozen
shots out of alkalines and didn't even work on ni-mh's. It was soon
pensioned off but even other cameras used to run batteries down at a
solid rate. This FZ28 renders battery life a non-issue anymore, even
if it is worse than a non-EVF job it's good enough not to be an issue
anymore.

I tossed up between buying the FZ28 or a SX10 Canon to replace my Fuji
S9600 that took a tumble as a result of my wife being cruel to it and
broke the battery door, rendering it much less serviceable. I have to
say i've been stunned as to how happy I am with it, but much preferred
the manual zooming of the Fuji, although size becomes an issue with
that and may be difficult to achieve in the smaller body.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 11:03 am
From: John Navas

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:24:58 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<_MJVl.37667$OO7.33513@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 07:09:22 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote

>>> But, as you know, I do also take a Panasonic TZ3 for the
>>> times when its compact size or movie capability are required.
>>
>> Nice camera, but much less capable than the FZ28.
>
>I have found that the DSLR / compact TZ3 combination suits me better than
>a ZLR/bridge camera for the reasons I gave. The bridge camera does not
>"excel at most trades", but it is a compromise which suits many people,
>including you. As you know, I have used a variety of ZLRs in the past.

We'll have to agree to disagree on "excel at most trades", but I do
agree the TZ-series is the right balance for many people -- I often
recommend the TZ5/TZ4 (which are significantly improved over the TZ3
IMHO), and am looking forward to trying the new ZS3/ZS1, which I just
might get myself for times when I want something smaller than my FZ28.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 11:15 am
From: John Navas

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:27:54 +1000, "Jim...(8-| " <jim@home.com> wrote
in <em2f25tejkd8uq0r7ue8vgb5bbre4180hq@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:04:57 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>Lens quality of the FZ28 is superb.

>Rather extraordinary.

Yep, it part due to sophisticated processing by Venus Engine IV, which
corrects for most distortion and color fringing in camera. It's very
nice not to have to do this in post-processing.

>As a very happy FZ28 owner I have to say that I'd be much happier if
>it had a mechanical zoom but my use of the fiddly switch may improve
>with practice.

It did take some learning to master the two-speed zoom, but I'm now
comfortable with how it works, especially with Zoom Resume engaged.
Two zoom speeds make a big difference over single speed zoom.

>Now may be a good time to bring up the subject of battery life again
>and the tiny little thing in the FZ28 seems to last forever. The
>makers must have worked wonders with consumption recently. I had a
>Polaroid compact years ago that would have been lucky to get a dozen
>shots out of alkalines and didn't even work on ni-mh's. It was soon
>pensioned off but even other cameras used to run batteries down at a
>solid rate. This FZ28 renders battery life a non-issue anymore, even
>if it is worse than a non-EVF job it's good enough not to be an issue
>anymore.

Agreed -- I've not had a battery issue even in days of hard shooting on
a 4 GB memory card, including lots of flash.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 11:19 am
From: John Navas

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:32:49 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<lUJVl.37669$OO7.17874@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>[]
>> p.s. The Panasonic FZ28 compact super-zoom excels at things that
>> matter most to me, including compact size, light weight, fast
>> handling, auto focus tracking, and a superb wide to super-zoom lens
>> that's unmatched in the dSLR world even at many times the price.
>> Things like HD movie with zoom are frosting on the cake.
>
>My DSLR already has as wide a zoom range as the FZ28, and I can extend
>that at any time, should I wish.

Not with comparable speed, optical quality, size, weight, and handling
ease. It's not an apples and apples comparison when you ignore these
factors. I lugged a complete 35 mm kit around Europe long ago, and it's
not something I'd ever want to do again, even for local outings.

>You choose what suits you, and I choose
>what suits me. Why be so defensive?

It's not defensive when you list the things that attract you to dSLR,
just when I list the things that attract me to compact super-zoom? ;)

>> p.p.s. "P&S" is a pejorative when applied to cameras like the FZ28, as
>> I'm sure you know -- since I'm not stooping to pejoratives like "dSLR
>> bigot", how about according me the same respect?
>
>I was just using the term in the title of the thread: "Re: Poor, poor P&S
>owner learns too late..."

That doesn't make it OK.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 5:12 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:Kbc0QmDBypJKFA6N@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <h05se9$p0b$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>
>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>news:lhnfuICsGDJKFAdq@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <h00q84$49u$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>
>>>>I think those that carry guns for self defence are the insecure ones.
>>>
>>> It depends who and where.
>>> I have carried a gun for self defence whist on duty in the UK.
>>> but not off duty.
>>
>>Well that's OK, depending on what your duty is.
>
> Military.

Well that's Ok, I was worried in case you were a librarian.
But do you really think the gun would protect you, or what was the reason
for
having a gun wss it self defence from a memebr of the genral public.

>>I would expect some people to perhaps carry guns while on duty,
>>but why carry a gun when as said a knife can cause much more damage.
>
> They you do not understand and from what I have seen your stance is
> wilful stupidity.

Well I just doen;t unhderstand how a gun would protect you from a knife,
unless you admit that a gun is a more powerful weapon than a gun.
Which is what I've always believed.

> You don't carry a gun to cause damage you carry a gun to stop a problem.

I guess that's one story, but thought you carried a gun for self defence.

>>> I can see no reason for most civilians to ever carry a gun for self
>>> defence and in the UK it is extremely rare. It is far more common that
>>> they assign an armed detective to you if there is a threat.
>>
>>True, but it seem in the US (although states vary) it seems to be that
>>being insecure is a way of life if a significant number of people feel the
>>need
>>to carry a gun,
>
> I quite agree.

So I dont really want this coming to the UK, perhaps if I knew the
advantages
I might change my mind.

>> here in the UK we haven't yet reach that point
>>of fear or insecurity.
>
> This is true for the general population though guns are now quite
> prevalent in the petty crime circles for "status" and "respect"

yes I know and that is worrying, and I don;t think the situation would
improve
if we legalised guns and that is my point.

> the other point is the legal guns were removed long before the
> government started on it's recent campaign of paranoia and fear see the
> new counter terrorist posters and adverts. Taking pictures of a police
> station that has been there for 100 years is suddenly a "terrorist
> threat"

Yep I agree, a friend of mien was search because she took a photo
of a power station. Again I don;t see hwo making guns legal will help.
All it could do would be to allow my frined to carry a gun and then the
police
would be MORE at risk and so would everyone else.

>>>>>I don't want a nanny state where
>>>>> anyone who is scared of their own shadow makes the rules fro normal
>>>>> people (and yes I have been shot at and held at gunpoint)
>>>>.
>>>>It's not my shadow I'm scared of.
>>>>A friend of mine was tracked down to a pub and searched by 4 police
>>>>because she was seen taking a photo of Tilsbury power station.
>>>
>>> Now that is worrying. What was the excuse the police gave? Not
>>> Terrorism?
>>
>>Yes. She and two friends, art students actually.
>
> You should have said *ALL* art students are by definition COMMUNIST and
> SUBVERSIVE.... hang on... what?... Oh.... I see... It appears that
> communists are not the enemy now according to Big Brother.
>
> It's islamofacists. Did these girls have sandals, turbans and beards?

Well not as far as I know but she did posses a canon.

>
>>but on this occasion the police did seem to be able to work out that
>>they likelihood that these 3 weren't terrorists was high.
>>They aked tehm where tehy were going so my friends said they were
>>waiting fro the rain to stop and then heading off to the station to go
>>home.
>
> Suspicious that as Islamofacists come from hot coultries like Sahara,
> Inda and currystan they don't like the rain.

I never thought of that, and I must admit that she tried to fool the police
by
wearing a dress which was black.

> Here's a tip if you see photographers with the subversive digital
> cameras hiding from the rain they are probably islamofacist terrorists.

I'll keep that in mind.
I'm glad I wasn;t with her, like I was two weeks previously, as I still
had a south-chicken wrap inn my bag I'd forgotten about it had a green mould
on it,
so I could have been done for biological or chemical weapons.

>
>>The police then offered to give them a lift to the station as it was
>>20mins
>>walk
>>away and in the rain, so they accepted.
>
> Not sure I would have trusted them... Which station? Police, bus, rail?

Oh :-), it was the train station.

>>yes I know knives can make a mess, and just because a gun is less messy
>>I don't think that should make them OK to carry around for 'self defence'
>
> It isn't in the UK except by police and military (on duty) and a VERY
> few special cases.

And I'd like to keep it that way, and I'd also like to trust the judgement
of those
carrying such weapons and their superiors not to fuck up and kill an
innocent person.
And by innocent I mean not guilty of a serious crime, or likely to commit a
serious crime.
>> Some recognise the need for limits, but perhaps the limit is too low.
>
> They are in many places. Usually where they put the cameras.

we had speed limits long before speed cameras.
I found this interesting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/06/speed-camera-boss-admits-speeding

>>Well there are those that nick cars for all sorts of purposes,
>>I'd hate to see that sort of person being able to acquire a gun for self
>>defence.
>
> 1 gun permits in the UK for Civilians were NEVER for self defence

And that's the way I want it to stay.

>
> 2 it was not that easy to get a gun permit anyway.
And that's the way I want it to stay.

> You had to be a member of a legitimate shooting club.
> You also had to convince the gun club and the Police you were suitable
> (it was often easier to convince the police than some gun clubs :-)
> and of course a spotless record.

yes we don't; want acne suffers getting hold of guns.

>
> However getting an illegal gun for self defence is much easier.

True, and I don;t see that making guns legal or having less restrictions
on gun ownership will improve things.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 11:33 am
From: Chris H

In message <h08dru$jmk$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
dave@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:Kbc0QmDBypJKFA6N@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <h05se9$p0b$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>
>>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>news:lhnfuICsGDJKFAdq@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <h00q84$49u$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>
>>>>>I think those that carry guns for self defence are the insecure ones.
>>>>
>>>> It depends who and where.
>>>> I have carried a gun for self defence whist on duty in the UK.
>>>> but not off duty.
>>>
>>>Well that's OK, depending on what your duty is.
>>
>> Military.
>
>Well that's Ok, I was worried in case you were a librarian.
Only at school :-)

>But do you really think the gun would protect you,
Yes. And I do not "think" I know.

> or what was the reason
>for
>having a gun wss it self defence from a memebr of the genral public.

Not from the "general public" but criminals/terrorists we were removing
from the general population.... you know the sort who photograph power
stations :-)

>>>> I can see no reason for most civilians to ever carry a gun for self
>>>> defence and in the UK it is extremely rare. It is far more common that
>>>> they assign an armed detective to you if there is a threat.
>>>
>>>True, but it seem in the US (although states vary) it seems to be that
>>>being insecure is a way of life if a significant number of people feel the
>>>need
>>>to carry a gun,
>>
>> I quite agree.
>
>So I dont really want this coming to the UK, perhaps if I knew the
>advantages
>I might change my mind.

There are no advantages to the members of the general public carrying
firearms for "self defence" and a lot of disadvantages.

Sadly the government did remove the private firearms held for sporting
purposes.

>>> here in the UK we haven't yet reach that point
>>>of fear or insecurity.
>>
>> This is true for the general population though guns are now quite
>> prevalent in the petty crime circles for "status" and "respect"
>
>yes I know and that is worrying, and I don;t think the situation would
>improve
>if we legalised guns and that is my point.

The Legal guns have no impact one way or the other on illegal guns in
the UK. This is because the culture of the legal gun owner in the UK is
very different to the USA

>> the other point is the legal guns were removed long before the
>> government started on it's recent campaign of paranoia and fear see the
>> new counter terrorist posters and adverts. Taking pictures of a police
>> station that has been there for 100 years is suddenly a "terrorist
>> threat"
>
>Yep I agree, a friend of mien was search because she took a photo
>of a power station. Again I don;t see hwo making guns legal will help.

There is no connection what so ever which is why removing the legal guns
had no effect one way or the other.

>All it could do would be to allow my frined to carry a gun

NO IT WOULD NOT THERE WERE EFFECTIVELY NO SELF DEFENCE OR CARRY PERMITS
IN THE UK FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON

>and then the
>police
>would be MORE at risk and so would everyone else.

The police would only be at risk if your friend carried an illegal gun.
They are now a lot more common. Though this has NOT CONNECTION to the
legal guns in the UK

>> You should have said *ALL* art students are by definition COMMUNIST and
>> SUBVERSIVE.... hang on... what?... Oh.... I see... It appears that
>> communists are not the enemy now according to Big Brother.
>>
>> It's islamofacists. Did these girls have sandals, turbans and beards?
>
>Well not as far as I know but she did posses a canon.

Canon? ....

CANON!!!!!

STAND STILL!

HANDS ON YOU HEAD!

IS THIS A WMD CANON?

(This is why I carry a Nikon..... its safer :-)

>>>but on this occasion the police did seem to be able to work out that
>>>they likelihood that these 3 weren't terrorists was high.
>>>They aked tehm where tehy were going so my friends said they were
>>>waiting fro the rain to stop and then heading off to the station to go
>>>home.
>>
>> Suspicious that as Islamofacists come from hot coultries like Sahara,
>> Inda and currystan they don't like the rain.
>
>I never thought of that, and I must admit that she tried to fool the police
>by
>wearing a dress which was black.

Did it cover here face? Sounds like the Jihad that Islamofacist women
wear (top hide their beards)

>> Here's a tip if you see photographers with the subversive digital
>> cameras hiding from the rain they are probably islamofacist terrorists.
>
>I'll keep that in mind.
>I'm glad I wasn;t with her,

I agree otherwise you might be a terrorist as well

>like I was two weeks previously, as I still
>had a south-chicken wrap inn my bag I'd forgotten about it had a green mould
>on it,
>so I could have been done for biological or chemical weapons.

Hmmm.... Where did you say you live? Approximately as the US bunker
busting bombs and unmanned drones tend to take out a block of suspected
terrorists at time (sadly that bit isn't a joke)

>>>yes I know knives can make a mess, and just because a gun is less messy
>>>I don't think that should make them OK to carry around for 'self defence'
>>
>> It isn't in the UK except by police and military (on duty) and a VERY
>> few special cases.
>
>And I'd like to keep it that way, and I'd also like to trust the judgement
>of those
>carrying such weapons and their superiors not to fuck up and kill an
>innocent person.
>And by innocent I mean not guilty of a serious crime, or likely to commit a
>serious crime.

I agree.

>>>Well there are those that nick cars for all sorts of purposes,
>>>I'd hate to see that sort of person being able to acquire a gun for self
>>>defence.
>>
>> 1 gun permits in the UK for Civilians were NEVER for self defence
>
>And that's the way I want it to stay.

Nothing changed when the legal guns were removed for people who could
carry a gun for self defence. There are still some out there but the
are very uncommon.

>> 2 it was not that easy to get a gun permit anyway.
>And that's the way I want it to stay.

Actually it is easier now.

>> However getting an illegal gun for self defence is much easier.
>
>True, and I don;t see that making guns legal or having less restrictions
>on gun ownership will improve things.

There is no connection between legal and illegal guns in the UK.

If you let all the former legal gun owners have their guns back it would
not have any effect tone way or the other on crime.

though the ban did bout thousands of people out of work and ruin
companies for not good reason and it did not save any lives.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: grim news for photographers tourism and rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 5:17 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87bpp4erjp.fld@apaflo.com...
> tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:38:52 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>

>>Your knowledge of law has the same flight characteristics of an iron
>>ball. Possession of lock picks is a criminal act in some states.
>
> So every locksmith is a criminal eh? Talking about
> flying lead bricks!

This does seem rather strange, here in the UK if yuo're found in
possession of lock picks (I believe locksmiths are registared) you'd have to
provide proof that you are a locksmith otherwise you'd be expected to
explain
why you had such items. I guess if you said a friend left them and you
are returning them, I'm guessing they'd phone that friend.
Perhaps you could claim that you found them and were taking them to a police
station.
But unless you could be considered as going in that direction I'm not sure
what would
happen.

>>In Virginia, for example, where Code 18.2-94-Possession of burglarious
>>tools states: If any person have in his possession any tools,
>>implements or outfit, with intent to commit burglary, robbery or
>
> "with intent to commit burglary". You seem to have
> missed the essential part of that.

That is the point, I think it's up to 'you' to prove your innocent though,
rather than being innocent until being proven guilty. [UK]

I do know a chef that carries his knives in a bag to work each day.
I'm not sure if noweradays he could 'get away with it'

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 7:21 am
From: tony cooper

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:08:07 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:06:18 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>Davidson) wrote:
>>My "broad statement" was "in some states". I have cited Virginia, and
>>will now cite Tennessee to justify the plural. Public Act, Chapter
>>885, Senate Bill 2024, in the Public Acts of 2006 states: "(g) No
>>person who is not licensed under this act shall possess, use, sell, or
>>offer to sell any code book, lock picking tool, manipulation key,
>>try-out key, safe opening tool,or car opening tool."
>
>I assume you have been just as brain dead in this case
>as you are with the Virginia example. While the above
>law does what you say it does, note that it is a law to
>require licensing of locksmiths, just as the practice of
>medicine requires a license, and several other trades
>probably including plumbers and electricians and some of
>them with criminal penalties for certain actions restricted
>only to those who are so licensed.

>The law that relates to our discussion is this one:
>
>See Tennesse Code, Section 39-14-701
> "Possession of burglary tools. A person who possesses
> any tool, machine or implement with intent to use the
> same, or allow the same to be used, to commit any
> burglary, commits a Class A misdemeanor."

Sloppy reading, Floyd. The Tennessee law I cited is dated 2006 and
amends the 1989 law you cited. It is headed: AN ACT to amend
Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 62,
relative to locksmiths. In other words, what I cited is the law
*now*.

The new law tidied up the old law by defining licensing requirements
*and* making possession of lock-picking tools illegal The new law
makes lock picks illegal to possess unless the person meets certain
requirements.

<quote> No person who is not licensed under this act shall possess,
use, sell, or offer to sell any code book, lock picking tool,
manipulation key, try-out key, safe opening tool, or car opening tool
<end quote>

>The point would still remain that "burglary tools" are
>not inherently illegal burglary tools. Your cite is
>very specific, as it actually lists specific tools and
>does not define them as "burglary tools". That is
>vastly distinct from what we started with, where
>crowbars and lock picks were the generic "tools" used as
>examples.

>And yes I realize you won't understand the logical
>significanc of that either... sigh.

I understand that old laws can be replaced by new laws and that we are
bound by the new laws when that happens. I understand that when you
questioned my statement that possession of lock picks might be a
criminal act, that you were wrong to do so.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 7:42 am
From: tony cooper

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:41:17 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>>The bit about the objects not being "inherently burglarious" was the
>>defense claim about the nature of keys. However, the court found that
>>these particular keys - special vending machine keys - were tools and
>>thus covered by the Code.
>
>Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Sheesh, can't you read at all?
>
> 'Thus, to convict an accused for possession of "any
> tools, implements, or outfit" not inherently
> burglarious, like the subject keys, the Commonwealth
> must establish the requisite intent *without* *benefit*
> *of* *the* *statutory* *presumption*.' [emphasis added]

>That was not what the defendant claimed, that is what
>the judge ruled the law to mean. He then went on to say
>that the Commonwealth had not relied on the statutory
>presumption at trial. (We don't care about what they
>did rely on, as neither of us disputes those grounds for
>conviction.)

The judge was responding to the defense's claim that keys did not fall
under the rule of law. The judges comments dealt with that speaking
of "the subject keys" and not other items that might be a part of a
future case. This was necessary because keys are a common household
item whereas lock picks are not.

>This "statutory presumption" may not be operative in
>that case, but the ruling is case law that defines
>exactly what the court believes the law to mean. And
>that is exactly what *is* operative for our discussion.
>
>The facts are that in the Commonwealth of Virginia the
>Court of Appeals has clearly stated that I can stand on
>any corner in any city with a hand full of lock pics
>without necessarily violating any law.

No, the judge's ruling allows anyone to stand on a corner in Virginia
with a handful of keys and not be in violation of a law for that
alone. It does not exculpate the person standing on a corner with a
handful of lock picks.

>>The question now is did you mistakenly cite this case because you did
>>not read and understand it, or did you deliberately cite the case
>>without a link hoping that it would not be checked out and you'd be
>>able to slip one over on me?
>>
>>Which is it? Stupid or dishonest?
>>
>>http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/2341972.pdf
>
>I *obviously* gave you everything needed to find one or
>more copies of the Court's opinion, and you did so.
>What is disingenuous is to claim I didn't!

In not providing a link, which is what a person of dubious credibility
as you are should do, you *obviously* hoped that I would not do a
search and prove you wrong as I did.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 7:46 am
From: tony cooper

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:17:12 +0100, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:

>
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87bpp4erjp.fld@apaflo.com...
>> tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:38:52 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>>
>
>>>Your knowledge of law has the same flight characteristics of an iron
>>>ball. Possession of lock picks is a criminal act in some states.
>>
>> So every locksmith is a criminal eh? Talking about
>> flying lead bricks!
>
>This does seem rather strange, here in the UK if yuo're found in
>possession of lock picks (I believe locksmiths are registared) you'd have to
>provide proof that you are a locksmith otherwise you'd be expected to
>explain why you had such items.

It's not strange at all. Floyd's shaky logic in making that assertion
is misleading. Registered or licensed locksmiths are exempted, and
even Floyd knows that.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 11:39 am
From: Chris H

In message <4A275F5D.1571299F@concentric.net>, John Turco
<jtur@concentric.net> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>>
>> In message <t0u725dmrt05bu44k05nn4okhqgec3s75h@4ax.com>,
>> ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>> >On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:27:15 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>There are wrongs on both sides. Why do photographers think they have a
>> >>>moral right to photograph people?
>> >>
>> >>Because the law says they can.
>> >
>> >does that make it morally right?
>>
>> The law is an absolute.
>>
>> Morals are not. And Yes it is *MORALLY* right.. God told me so :-)
>
>
>Hello, Chris:
>
>Infidel! Blasphemer! When did >I< tell you such a thing? <G>

HEATHEN!

YOU ARE NOT GOD!
God is sitting here telling me that you are the FALSE GOD and only he is
the TRUE GOD

MY interpretation of the scriptures is the only correct one. When God
said love one another what he meat was:

Love one another... except the gays, spics, wogs, Catholics, Jews and
that funny looking family down the road on the left and any one with the
Devils name (John) .

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 11:35 am
From: Chris H

In message <jobe255negj04u37mfqaj4cufks38dt3po@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:06:18 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>In fact the Virginia courts have of
>>course ruled on what the above actually does mean, and
>>it isn't what you seem to think.
>>
>> 'Thus, to convict an accused for possession of "any
>> tools, implements, or outfit" not inherently
>> burglarious, like the subject keys, the Commonwealth
>> must establish the requisite intent without benefit
>> of the statutory presumption.'
>> Moss vs Commonwealth of Virgina, 2341-97-2
>> Opinion by Judge Richard S. Bray
>>
>>Please note that lock picks are not "inherently burglarious".
>
>Floyd, this deep-sixes your credibility in the area of law.

And software
and firmware (and camera electronics systems)

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anyone remembers those old soft and hard camera cases?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/323e68ef10ad5b0f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 5:57 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Michael J Davis" <mjdusenet@trustsof.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f9pqzVBvK6IKFwzr@trustsof.co.uk.invalid...
>C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> was inspired to
>say
>>On 2009-05-29 14:12:22 -0700, aniramca@gmail.com said:
>>
>>> In the old film cameras era, I recall that when you purchase an SLR
>>> camera, it usually comes with a soft or a hard (leather) case. The
>>> case is attached to the camera via a screw to the tripod mount at the
>>> bottom of the camera. I wonder why they do not have any more of this
>>> type of camera case? Since it is attached like a "skin" to the
>>> camera, I usually did not need to buy a camera soft pouch case. The
>>> case will protect the camera outer shell from dust, and perhaps little
>>> bumps; although it will not likely help to reduce impact if the camera
>>> falls. On a second thought, I also wonder if the new padded camera
>>> cases that you can get at the camera stores nowadays can protect the
>>> camera if it falls either. Anyone has some thought about this?
>>> Thanks for the info/discussion.
>>
>>They were unpopular, mainly because they took too much time to unfasten
>>and get the camera ready.

I though it was cost, but I did have a cheap one and found it useful.
I used to carry a few camera around and it certainly stopped them damaging
each other from rubbing and knocking against each other.

> The only thing they did was protect the
>>camera from minor scratches. People complain because it takes two or three
>>seconds for their digital cameras to power up. They would have a fit if it
>>took ten times that long to unfasten a case, too. Many a pro does not even
>>know where his lens caps are.
>
> The real problem was that the flap that went over the top would bob up in
> front of the camera lens!!

Mine would I do that if I tried to take a shot with that part of teh case
still atached.
Mine had a key&hook and I uswed to remove that secion of the case
just before removing the lens cap.
But that was on my old Praktica L which didn't even have a battery.
I wound the film on by hand too ;-0

>
> However, I'm not too proud to admit that I used my Leica M3 for years in
> one - but the Leica case had the advantage that the cover could be
> completely removed, and the camera was protected in the little cradle that
> held the body.

Sounds very much like my cheap case.

>>
>>But if you want one, most manufacturers still make them for their consumer
>>cameras. You just have to order it. If you have a pro type camera, forget
>>getting one from the manufacturer. You will have to go to some third party
>>supplier.
>>
>>Much more popular are belt pouches and holster systems, which offer better
>>protection and faster accessibility.
>
> But too easy to sit on, with the consequences of damage to vital parts!

isn't that part of the fun ;-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheap wholesale Affliction Caps (WWW.EdHardy4Sale.COM) Affliction Hats
wholesale
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/be512f0fcac1590b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 8:59 am
From: edhardy4sale

Cheap wholesale Affliction Caps (WWW.EdHardy4Sale.COM) Affliction Hats
wholesale

For people who love to have a perfect look Affliction hats
(WWW.EdHardy4Sale.COM) will be your ultimate choice. Affliction hat
(WWW.EdHardy4Sale.COM) is one of the top rated designer hat and
Affliction hats (WWW.EdHardy4Sale.COM) offer their customers with a
wide range of choices that is not available with the other brands.
They are trendy and comfortable to use. There are so many colors and
designs with affliction hats and you will find a perfect match just
made for you. We have the perfect Affliction hat and Affliction Caps
(WWW.EdHardy4Sale.COM) for you at the perfect price. We sell all types
of affliction hats (WWW.EdHardy4Sale.COM) Affliction Caps at our store
so that you will never go disappointed.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Trick Kodak z1285s to recharge regular rechargable batteries?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d80b9951f5765f8b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 10:33 am
From: Evan Platt

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:46:20 -0500, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
wrote:

>Hello, Evan:
>
>My own Kodak AA packs (e.g., KAA2HR) are of the Ni-MH type, I should
>add.

Yeah, I've got a few of those - 1800 mah NiMh.

>Also, putting Li-Ion batteries into any charger, other than one that's
>expressly made to accept them, is not only counterproductive, it's
>extremely dangerous -- as explosions can even ensue!
>
>Just a word to the wise, eh? ;-)

Ok.. appreciate the advise. I think I'll follow that.

Before I go and buy more - is a 1800 mah LiIon a real big enough
advantage over a 1800 mah NiMH?

I have a few 1800 mah NiMh's and the easyshare dock, and just bought 2
1800 mah LiOn's with the seperate charger. If there's a good enough
advantage with LiIOn's, I'll get a few more...

Thanks. :)
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c04187075ef6f9c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 4 2009 11:42 am
From: Chris H

In message <871vq1eyu4.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.com> writes
>Okay. Now, is that firmware just controlling the data
>flow or is it manipulating the data?

Yes to both

> Is there a CPU
>in the ASIC?

Normally.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Thursday, June 4, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Thursday, June 4, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic